winsor

I'm sure if John Edwards ends up in Butt Slam Prison, he will think of what he did to hurt his wife and tear his family apart, often. As a sociopath, I doubt if he will consider anything beyond his perception that people were being mean to him, and that he would have been just fine if they had not sought to victimize him. The idea that an attorney should somehow take responsibility for his actions is laughable.

I'm not aware of any evidence that "intelligence" as we define it provides any evolutionary advantage. Good point. Population times intelligence seems to be close to an universal constant, which says something or another. BSBD, Winsor

All well and good, but a little triage is in order. The third rail of species survival is overpopulation. Even if we agree that reducing population is critical to the continued existance of the human species in any form we might recognize, quite how do we effect population control? ZPG is, by nature, anti-Darwinian or de-evolutionary ("we're all Devo!"). Fecundity becomes inversely proportional to IQ - which has certainly happened in rather a few venues. Active Eugenics got a bad name in the 1930s and 1940s, as well it should. Sterilization of the poor (if you can't feed yourselves, you sure as hell can't afford kids) is one approach that would never fly. Without an endless stream of deadbeats, the Democratic Party would implode (Republicans have major issues as well, but it's the truth). In any event, having 10 billion people on this planet who are all living lives devoted to avoiding Global Warming (or whatever you want to call it) is still a recipe for disaster. From a Global Warming perspective, you would be better off with 100 million people on the planet getting around in coal-fired locomotives. If someone can't figure out what are the immediate issues we face, I am not too concerned about what they may or may not think about eventualities. BSBD, Winsor

And yet both papers were included in the IPCC. I reiterate my contention that the focus on Global Warming (or whatever it its nom du jour), in light of the other issues we face, is about as bright as focusing on hangnails when the patient has metasticized cancer. I do not dispute that "greenhouse gases" are a FACTOR (though hardly a prevailing factor) in the heat balance of the planet. I do contend, however, that by the time "greenhouse gases" are a primary consideration, we will have addressed over 90% of the immediate threats to our survival of the species. In First Aid, the priorities are Bleeding, Breathing, Poison and Shock. To prioritize "Global Warming" is the equivalent of focusing on the bad hangover of someone who cut an artery while drunk. Al Gore did not quite flunk Science - but he did get a D on what little he actually took. It shows. The problem with Comic Book Science is that it is difficult to unlearn, once someone has developed their concept of reality on its basis. Having Liberal Arts types make Science decisions is likely to be disasterous, similar to having Attorneys make Economic or Medical policy. If we address the more immediate problems at hand, by the time we have achieved any success in the matter we will have discovered that "Global Warming" is a self-correcting issue. BSBD, Winsor

Do you ever wonder how many of these self righteous fucks have done exactly the same thing??? Oh, I doubt if it's quite 100%. Close, though. Scum rises to the top.

Now THERE is a tradition that conservatives can rally to. War is suppossed to be about the spoils of war.. the raping.. the pilaging... Kill off all those R...head men... and sell off their women and children... YEAH.. thats the ticket. Nah, women and children don't fetch enough to cover fuel costs for M-1 Abrams tanks and Hummvees, much less purchase costs for B-2s and so forth. I was thinking more along the lines of a walk-through victory (you know, "mission accomplished..."), followed by Versailles-type reparations terms. Since the oppressed people we have to set free don't tend to have a lot of money - and it would be immoral to starve the poor widows and orphans - we could accept, say, the black sticky stuff that threatens to pollute their desert environment. We are addicted to it, after all. Of course they would agree to these terms out of gratititude for all we have done for them ("I never liked him anyway"). BSBD, Winsor

I suspect that the results being sought would rapidly evolve into a scenario similar to that which emerged in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. For some reason, nobody calls racism when losers are running the show. When you have populations who have turned every locale over which they have had sway into a shithole, people complain when they are not given carte blanche in an area that they have not been allowed to destroy - particularly if it was a shithole when they were in charge. Whatever the problem, it beats any proposed "solution" (for all the bitching, it is the Islamists who recommend nothing short of "Final Solution"). BSBD, Winsor

I'm not crippled. Crippled implies uselessness, disposable, trashed, finished. I'm far from crippled. I don't expect you to understand, and given your general disdain for anyone who's not you, I certainly don't expect you to care, but the word crippled pisses me off. It also pisses a lot of other people off. If you want to keep using it, be my guest, but I wouldn't walk up to a wounded warrior and ask him how it feels to be a cripple. You might get to experience the feeling yourself. Crippled is crippled. What you read into it is your business. I am sick to death of people who try to come up with an endless of series of "kinder, gentler" words to describe whatever, only to have each successive term take on the exact connotations of the term it replaced. The guys with whom I was hospitalized, who had their spines blown out and massive, irreperable damage done by high explosives, were not "challenged" or "impaired" - they were crippled, and it sucked. It pisses me off when someone medevaced after a firefight is described by some newscaster as "injured." A sucking chest wound is not an injury - it is a wound and there is a difference. If you want to take offense, so be it. I find mincing words to be every bit as offensive, and I endeavor not to do so. b.t.w., having beaten an iron lung and spent many months in a wheelchair and on crutches, I don't have to ask. BSBD, Winsor

At what dollar limit do you say; "Screw it, freedom is too expensive, I would prefer to just live under tyranny." State your price. The idea that the results obtained are somehow proportional to the money (or lives) thrown at a problem is the rub. If you HAVE to engage in combat, let there be no quarter. If you can finesse you way to the goal (please define quite what you mean by "freedom") without firing a shot, so much the better. The pentultimate ideal is to achieve your overall purpose peacefully (at least for us) and turn a buck in the process. If we could engage in combat at a profit, I would be less opposed to resorting to warfare as a matter of course. The reality, however, is that the greatest victories tend to leave the victor bankrupt. With our government adopting a Third Reich playbook (Godwin be damned, "Homeland Security" is indistinguishable from the work of Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels), I lose track of quite how pissing away $ trillions trying to kill or tame ragheads serves to ensure my "freedom." Don't get me wrong - if every last islamist were to simultaneously drop dead of natural causes, I would be greatly relieved. Unfortunately, the same is true of TSA. There are only two requirements for terrorism to succeed: terrorists and pussies (and the terrorists need not actually exist). Thus, to defeat terrorism, the approach must be twofold as well: kill terrorists and don't be a pussy. BSBD, Winsor

Hot tip: the physically challenged, especially wounded soldiers, aren't too fond of that term. Xin loi. Crippled is crippled. Deal with it.

Ding ding ding ding!!!! we have a winner. Who was Bush more concerned with after 911? In the grand scheme of things, it don't matter anyways. Iraq and Afghanistan will turn into even worst shitholes that they are now after we leave, and we will leave, be it sooner or later. Bomb them back to the Stone Age, I say! A pack of ladyfingers and half a dozen bottle rockets should do it.

Freedom from what, or from whom? If the place is that big of a threat, why don't we just use up some of these thermonuclear gadgets we have all bought and paid for, and turn the place into a big parking lot? Don't like fighting in mountains? No problem, consider them flattened! The biggest objection I have to waging war is the cost involved. This cost includes turning nice kids into worm food or cripples, as well as squandering resources we simply cannot afford. To accuse the government of pissing away money like a drunken sailor is a gross insult to drunken sailors - drunken sailors quit spending when they run out of money. We are a nation on which the concept of finesse is lost. I do not object to achieving results, but using brute force and ignorance to do so is not exactly the optimal approach. BSBD, Winsor

The most effective and humane means of assisted suicide with which I am familiar involves the use of Special Ops. The intercranial injection of 147 grains of lead has been shown to produce rapid results, putting an end to suffering for everyone involved. The recent assisted suicides in Abbotabad, Pakistan show the benefit of this procedure. BSBD, Winsor

So when the law of the land was that it was legal to keep Negroes in slavery it was the "Christian values" which upheld that law? How about today in Saudi Arabia where the law subjugates women , should Christians in that country"uphold the law of the land". Are all Christians sheep or are they ready to protest and perform actions of civil disobedience when the "law of the land" is against the teachings of the Master, Jesus the Christ"? What did Jesus say about torture? Apparently it is "the law of the land" today, Ron. I guess you are ok with that. So be it. You will come around to the Truth soon enough. Cromaat . Peace, Jim B Be careful how you criticize those who torture. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

You have a point. I think blood sacrifice in schools should be protected by the First Amendment. Pithing frogs before Biology exams would be a good start. And virgins, don't forget about virgins. "It's only because I love you enough to keep you from being thrown into the volcano. I can make you immune to such a fate."

You have a point. I think blood sacrifice in schools should be protected by the First Amendment. Pithing frogs before Biology exams would be a good start.

no, he's not real (heretic)! superman is though and you'd better not disbelieve! I got a pocket full of kryptonite.

I have driven many cars that did not have a working speedo.... I didn't get a ticket. Many cars with working speedos and people still got tickets. Relying on any device blindly is foolish. My Shovelhead went without anything more than an oil pressure gauge for decades. I was followed home by someone once, who then asked me how I was able to nail the speed limit every time it changed. I told her that I know what 25, 35 and 45 mph sound like in the appropriate gear, and I don't have to look at a meter to know how fast I'm going. I have been flying instruments for over 20 years, and once shot an approach when I was down to a compass, a turn and bank indicator, a tachometer and a first-generation GPS (Garmin 55AVD). The lack of AI, DG, ASI, VSI and altimeter (as well as the liberal coating of ice) did not make things easier, but being able to tune out the bad sources was a great help. I watch the ground on climbout to get a feel for how houses look at 1,000, 2,000 and so forth, so that I get a visual clue when my batteries are dead and/or the needle is stuck on my altimeter. The most serious swoopers I have known did not use an altimeter, relying on sight picture to work their magic. I keep instruments on hand, but expect them to fail en masse at the worst possible time - since they have been known to do so. BSBD, Winsor

Ask me tomorrow. Today I respect their memory. No, today you are being disrespectful to their memory. You only want to know that they are dead. You don't want to know why. Was their "sacrifice" for the Liberty of their loved ones at home. Or was their forced conscription (slavery) for the freedom of the industrialists to make huge profits out of the expence paid for by the country and the "expendables" ? That is the question today that the dead soldiers are screaming from their graves to have answered. They could care less that you remember that they died. They ,their families ,and the nation would like to know exactly what was it they died for. I believe we owe them that. Peace, Jim B Every analysis with which I am familiar has shown that the reason one fights isn't Mom/Apple Pie (or equivalent), it is one's comerades. The Medal of Honor is generally reserved for those whose actions showing Conspicuous Gallantry Above and Beyond the Call of Duty is in the support of their brothers in arms. IIRC, the highest proportion of MOH recipients has been Medics. When in the trenches, politics and philosophy have precious little to do with why one does what they do. It all comes down to keeping the faith, and letting down one's compatriots is the lowest of the low. Civilians (Clancy, et al.) may glorify turncoats on ethical grounds, but in practice a deserter or traitor from any cause is subject to universal loathing by those who have kept the faith. One of the few Yankee officers for whom I have respect was Chamberlain; at Appamattox his regiment saluted the vanquished as worthy opponents who had fought well. Today, please use politics as a suppository, and focus instead on the honor of those who have earned it. Red, white and blue skies, Winsor

If that's not a non-sequitur I don't know what is. What are the chances of the US even coming close to having a Muslim leader any time in the next few decades? You mean after this one? Once the door has been cracked open it can never be closed. Sorry dude, you're going to have to fight that one out with your fellow right wing crazy, the one who started this thread. It doesn't matter how much you hate him, Obama can't be both a Muslim and a radical follower of black liberation theology.Quote Is that a quote from Malcolm X? Elijah Muhammad? Louis Farrakahn?

Excitable boy, they all said.

And where in this thread has that idea been expressed? The only person being absolutist here is you. Well, if you guys are gonna continue to call Christians uneducated morons day after day as if that was the basis of their faith, then you may want prove that point absolutley, otherwise the pratical significance of that statement is as effective as calling someone a poopey face. Credulous, not undeducated; and mental illness is quite distinct from intellect.

It seems a shame to suffer from another person's good fortune. I realize that, if a junkie offers me heroin, it is the nicest thing he can do. The smack is what makes life for him worthwhile, and the day to day indignities tolerable. It does not dawn upon the junkie that becoming like him is a truly repellent prospect. "You're just jealous, since I got the dope and you don't." "Thanks, but you can have mine." As crutches go, religion has a lot less to recommend it than narcotics or alcohol. Going from one disease of denial to another is hardly admirable. BSBD, Winsor

Socrates is correct. We can only see ourselves in others. That is what draws you into these arguments. You know that we have something that you don't have. Something in you desires it and fights against it at the same time. It is called cognitive dissonance. It bothers you and yet you are not able to accept the resolution. Therefore, you project your internal conflict outward and try to change us from catalyst to cause. Your guesses regarding the motivation of others are wrong across the board. I simply do not suffer fools gladly.

I agree. It seems that the intellectual elite, the believers in nothing, are afraid to allow their emotions, other than anger, to manifest. They are afraid to experience the love of God. They do not know how they will handle it. It is scary for them, emotionally crippled indeed. "A man sees in others what he knows of himself." Socrates You imagine others as being univerasally subject to your limitations. This is most certainly not the case.